Dismissed

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Nov 2012WP/820/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order accepting a police 'C' summary report accusing a car dealer and manufacturer of theft. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no criminal mens rea and ruling the matter suitable for civil/consumer dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged and Writ Petition dismissed finding no criminal liability on respondents.

Zaira D. Gomes Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2012)

wp820-12.sxw

1/5

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.820 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs.Zaira D.Gomes …Petitioner versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mrs.Zaira D.Gomes, Petitioner in person present.

¶9

Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State.

¶10

Mr.A.M.Chimalkar, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

Mr.P.P.Tipnis i/b. M/s.Consulta Juris, for Respondent no.5.

¶12

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶13

DATED : 5^th November, 2012

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard finally. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶16

The petitioner questions legality and validity of the order dated

¶17

14.11.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, accepting “C” summary report and granting the same. The case of the petitioner is, she had purchased a car from the respondentdealer. After its use, after about 18 months, she had given it for servicing on 5^th occasion. She noticed that tyre, music system, battery, seats, dash board,

¶18

car coolant container, wiper fluid container were replaced and some of the

wp820-12.sxw

2/5

Pvr

parts were damaged by the dealer/ M/s.Shaman Motors Pvt.Ltd. She has arrayed the dealer, their employees, also M/s.Ford India Pvt.Ltd.- the manufacturer of the Car, asserting theft of her parts, substitution thereof and loss thereof.

¶23

On a detail inquiry caused by the police, it revealed that the petitioner while receiving the vehicle after servicing, has unequivocally recorded that she has received the vehicle in order completely serviced and thereafter, she has made false accusation. It is also reported by the police officer that she approached even the police against the dealer and the dealer had satisfied the documentation to this effect. It is informed, there is nothing to suggest that any part of the motor car was changed by the dealer or any of its employee. The change of battery given reference of, is also not matching to the documentation possessed by the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner in person has argued the matter before this Court. On 13.3.2012, after hearing the petitioner, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, J.) opined that the second car which was given to the petitioner was used by her for about 18 months and then it was given for service where some parts are allegedly changed. This may call for consumer complaint rather than a case of theft or misappropriation.

wp820-12.sxw

3/5

Pvr

The matter appeared before this Court on 6.9.2012. The

¶29

petitioner argued extensively including tendering written submissions for admission of her petition. She stated, the petition should be admitted, however, when the Court indicated to hear the petition finally at admission stage, she was accommodated to 16.10.2012, and the matter was taken up on 17.10.2012. Again after arguing the matter for some time, she tendered summary of her arguments and sought accommodation as she wanted to tender affidavit in rejoinder. She was informed to do so upto 25.10.2012. She accepted having concluded her submissions. The matter was adjourned to 30.10.2012. Since, the affidavit in rejoinder and the written arguments of respondents were not furnished in time for inspection, the matter is adjourned for orders.

¶30

Reading the petition and annexures as a whole, it transpirs that the petition is activated with vivacious allegations, the latent motto behind it is to tarnish the image of the manufacturer in the market and by exercising pressure tactics to ensure again replacement of the vehicle which she had done in past by adopting same means. The charge asserted that various parts of the car were replaced after 18 months, is incredible. On behalf of the respondents, it is informed and rather rightly, that the parts which allegedly are replaced like music system, tyres, seat covers, wiper containers, dash board, such spare parts, if they had already been used for 18

wp820-12.sxw

4/5

Pvr

months, were as good as worthless in the eyes of the company/respondents or the dealer. The record available with the respondents illustrates, there was satisfactory service report from the petitioner as a customer. In order to satisfy the petitioner, in fact, except for some minor wear and tear, there

¶35

were no defects in the car or the spare parts. The matter has been investigated by the police at two occasions and they had scrutiny of the available material including recording of statements of several witnesses. Even the police conducted inspection in presence of the petitioner and respondents in order to satisfy her, but the petitioner is reluctant to accept the fact that the respondents are not at fault.

¶36

One of the limb of the submissions from the petitioner was, due to replacement of the parts, chances of suffering in an accident being more, the consequences are hazardous and hence, the respondents should face the music. However, it is difficult to accede that by the afore effort of so called change of the parts, the petitioner could face an accident.

¶37

It is informed by the learned Counsel for respondents, since the reputation of the company was at stake, in one of the meetings, the respondents agreed to settle the issue and to replace the some of the spare parts, as and by way of buying peace, as the officers of respondents were finding constant visits to the police station to be taxing and expensive. It

wp820-12.sxw

5/5

Pvr

was informed, the petitioner initially agreed to the arrangement but later that backed and started increasing her demand.

¶42

Reading the complaint as a whole, no criminality is highlighted or responsibility in penal action can be fastened on the respondents as they had no mens rea. There was no act that make out a person guilty from either the employees of the respondents or from the manufacturer- the company to replace the parts which were indeed worn out due to use of 18 months. The approach of the petitioner is enigmatic associated to ensure gamut and is bizarre in character. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrow to a filament. One has to keep the balance upright. The petitioner was sufficiently heard by the learned Judge. She was given opportunity to agitate her points.

¶43

Looking from any angle, no fault can be attributed to the learned Judge in accepting “C” summary report as the available material did not inform him to issue process.

¶44

Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged.

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaira D. Gomes v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

Chandulal B. Hinduja and Arn Vs Madhu Ramchand Lund and Anr.

Rajendra Kalicharan Verma Vs M/S. Samlalp Steel Corporation and Ors.

Parsuram Maruti Tawade Vs M/S. Ajinkya Co-Op.Credit Soc. Ltd, and Anr.

Omprakash Jhunjhunwala Vs Prabhat Ramrichpal Jhunjhunwala and Ors.

Palesh Bherulal Jain and Anr. Vs Nareshchandra M Rathod and Ors.